About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Brannan 5, Us 5, Moore 3, Mr. Vettel 3, San Francisco 2, Chinatown 2, Vad El 1, Cal 1, Urs 1, An Amnesty 1, The City 1, Wu 1, Washington 1, Girardily 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    March 14, 2013
    2:30 - 3:00pm PDT  

2:30pm
compromise transparency, and the different types of signs like that signs that are not on landmark buildings and historic districts and the recommendation that we can continue to make sure there is compliance in that respect. and the signs that have architectural merit and there is ability with this definitely and when it comes to illumination that there is now in the suggestion that there is when there is a change of illumination there is not a change of copy but change in the level of illumination, the kind where it's director internal and all of these things to make sure there is really appropriate conditional use, if there is community input, that there is the full chance to have a hearing and approval by commission appeal to the board of supervisors and appropriate other appeals of
2:31pm
structure and increasing in forcing and these are treated as the exceptions rather than grandfather erg. thank you very much for working with us on this and on behalf of the local city that we continue to have a process that's open transparent and involves everyone in the community. thank you. good afternoon. i'm in the green party and i officially represent the local grass roots. our city bedrock issue when we first started our organization was formula retail and this issue do have tails with that a little bit and that
2:32pm
if a formula retail buys a bunch of storefront with non-conforming signs. you saw pictures of what could happen. that's a concern and also we would respectfully ask the sponsor to flip this so we are taking change the amount of sign. and if we set up a blanket policy that allows especially a large chain to come in and repurpose signs like this, it could really be a problem. i know this isn't exactly the same issue, but if you look around at the old theatre marquis and what is there that's within existing
2:33pm
law. but it's an example of how we are really not getting our hands around this process of making sure that we keep the city looking beautiful so i would just urge the sponsor, the legislation to reverse this so it gives good protection for individual business owners or maybe even a trader joes to an individual process basis come in to ask for a release on a specific sign but would ask you to not support a creative blanket policy to creative slope that would get a lot of signs that might not be good for communities. >> any additional public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. on behalf of the ownership of 888 brannan
2:34pm
street. it's a former gift center. before that it was built as the ever ready battery -- the revisions that staff is proposing to take this ordinance away from buildings and the unique features of those buildings. the issue with this building is not an article 10 or 11 building. it's on the resources of historic places. it historically had signage at the corner towers these are battery insignia. the issue with this building is that when zoning change to 2008, the height limit for the signs were
2:35pm
change. since this building was built over a hundred years ago, there aren't permits that indicate the corners towers were permitted signs. what we suggested in my letter and meeting with staff there is some historic building and sign program that is distinct from the typical business signs. we drafted after the model signs that was adopted a few years ago that makes recognition of the unique features of the historic signs. what we are proposing is that if there is signage on an historic building that is integral to the design of the building, the character defining feature of the building that sign is continued to be in existence. in the case of 888 brannan that is an
2:36pm
office building. having a gift center on the sign makes no sense, it's confusing. but if we take the gift center sign down, there is nothing to replace it with. insignificant the design is part of the building that being anticipate able to up great those signs and direct you to have them >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item? it's closed. >> thank you. i want to clarify issues were raised during the session. this is not an amnesty. in order to qualify
2:37pm
for this, you have to have evidence that the sign was legally in stalled. if it was not legally installed, then this would not apply. so i wanted to clarify that first and there would be an appeal to have these permits to the board of appeal. i just wanted to clarify that. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> i think it's very important for us to hear comments made by mr. vad el in terms of brannan street. what i would like to add here is while i'm not sure each of the comments he made are applicable. i believe this particular legislation has it's currently requires more technical detail that is to
2:38pm
make sure that sign is an integral part of buildings which is prior to any sign ordinance considered are indeed an exception and there are quite a few of those buildings however they might not be changing owner use so quickly. the others are extremely important and the one thing the question that has not been answered to me is the following: copy and topography. copy is letters, topography which is specific to the sign in which the building was created. particular in
2:39pm
prior to 1970 before computers were not able to so many type faces, there was a certain type of topography which was designed that was very clear when you hear signs he talked about. i'm not saying we need to replicate exactly the time period in which the copy we are replacing needs to repeat. but i do think as a correlation between the type of signs, the body we are told the lettering and the type of sign. this is a technical detail. it was very large. you could see it everywhere. today we are trying
2:40pm
to replace 4 letters of what's going to be 14 letters because we don't have only one new name which is trader joes, but it's going to be trader joes and cvs, two type faces which are completely different. they don't go very well, one is a western style and the other is very rigid and potentially we can have a strange mix up there. i'm using this as an example because i go by this particular corner frequently and i believe and encouraging supervisors who are in discussion with you to add a little bit more technical detail and specificness no what you are trying to legislate. even though we are making everything transparent and easy we don't want to lose
2:41pm
protection and going backward and creating a blanket policy. >> commissioner anti-nin >> yeah. i think this legislation needs a little bit of fine tuning but i believe we are talking about trying to keep the same thought possible on these signs even though the tenant maybe a different tenant. it's been pointed out that traders joe's and cvs are replacing cal an and there are more letters but part of the an allowance that the font should remain the same especially on the historic ones even though the tenants are different. it makes no sense to have a sign for a tenant that is no longer there that confuses public. in fact the other night they were
2:42pm
going to an event and they ended up at the gift center because there was an event there years before. it wasn't so much about the signage but they remember going to one a few years before that and it's fairly close to the same place. as far as the appeals process, correct me if i am wrong, but it sounds like there would be an ability for discretionary review and even staff created would there not be? >> no. section 604 a specifically states the planning commission doesn't have the authority to comply with articles 6 with the planning code for signs. there would be an appeal. no one can have a dr before the planning commission but they can -- appeal. >> could staff do that if they
2:43pm
thought something was inappropriate? >> it would generally be an a member. >> there would be a review? >> correct. >> for those who maybe concerned about the nature of signs and there were some examples of signs that were not appropriate, there will be a staff review and there is a board of appeals, i understand that additional enumeration and change in structure all things would not be an approved. so if we looked at some of those loud chase signs, it would be possible the staff wouldn't allow those in the future even though it might have replaced a washington mutual sign that was similar of the size. >> the proposed sign would not
2:44pm
deviate from the character of the sign that it's replacing. it's something we would do and make that determination if we felt the sign violate that we would instruct them to provide a sign that meets the current code requirement or disapprove the sign requirement and theca y can appeal to the board. >> you see a lot of these signs replaced arbitrarily and looks like they are normal challenged at this point in time w this legislation there will be' tendency for more challenges. >> if someone wants to take advantage af legal non-compliant sign and they have a permit and want to change that to new copy. we have to make the determination
2:45pm
to not change the character and if we make that determination they can change the copy. if they want flexibility, they can move that sign and install with the planning code and they are not stuck with the department with making the change of character. the point about illumination issue. the blue lights are not something that we would regulate as signage. that's just illumination of the property. i will look into the permit history in particular for the 2 signs that are at the corner because currently under the planning codes the signs can't be higher than 24 feet and it looks like they might be higher. i want to make sure we'll look at that one. >> thank you, the quality of the sign has to be the guiding
2:46pm
factor whether it's formula retail or independent. if it's a lousy sign it should not be there whether it's from an f c or whether it's from some local company. we have to look at the quality of the sign and make that the defining factor. >> mr. vettel, could i ask you a question for a moment? you spoke to a particular building but this in general with historic signs you are advocating and i think i agree with this for the replacement of the signs even though the letters might be too large and to just replace the same type of letter, the same font but current owner of the building or the current tenant of the building? >> that is correct. >> that seems clear on that there is no point in identifying it and it's not
2:47pm
making it any worse. there are signs around for 75 years. i can think of a lot of buildings particularly south of market that have the old industrial uses that used to be there and sometimes they leave them as just when they are deemed to be historic even though everybody knows the buildings are something else , but when they are misleading, it's probably better to be be able to replace them. i think i favor this legislation as it's written so far with staff modifications. >> commissioner hills. >> mr. drew, do you see that came up by san francisco beautiful and cities about some type of review whether it's zoning administrator or c urs, and have you looked at that?
2:48pm
>> thank you for the question. we've had some preliminary discussion on that issue. it is something we are open to talk about and other interested parties about. we want to make sure we strike a balance between really considering the scope of the legislation and not creating significant additional work for the department or expense for sponsors when we are talking about something as simple as a copy change. we are hesitant to create more work for the commission as well. it is an interesting idea to make it an exception and that's something we are open to and open to recommendation from the commission to be able to work on that. >> i think i would be in support of that. and not going
2:49pm
through the cost of replacing that there is a cost of going through the c u too. that one size fits all may not work. having the zone or commissioner is one way to go. >> the distinctions the city is able to make for people who want signs, these are not general advertising signs. i think that was obviously very important as well. that's something we can continue to work on but my understanding is that is a bit of a challenge. >> the historic issue, with mr. vettel's where that name has been changed over the years and the copy isn't significant anymore but the architectural element, that's one case, but the copy is significant even though they are not the tenant
2:50pm
anymore. we wouldn't want someone to come in and change the copy. the historic aspect needs to be looked at where the copies in historic, we shouldn't allow the copy to be changed where it's an architectural copy to the changed over the years is something to consider. >> the northeast legislation over the last two years, we'll be happy to sit down with mr. vettel to look at the language how it's raised and see how this legislation is a piece at this point. >> i think especially from the point of view of a small business it's really practical and i thank mr. miguel for the example he gave. i work in chinatown and think about an
2:51pm
owner that maybe put together all of their money to buy a business and not even aware that their sign is non-complying. they brought up issue of formula retail and all the examples of signs. some of those signs may have been conforming, i don't know which were and which weren't. but i think we should maybe focus on changing the sign regulations as opposed to fixings it through this legislation as to size and height of signs that need to be changed in certain neighborhoods where that would be with article 6 and the formula on the retail issue, the controls are getting stronger and trending toward even stronger control. so i think formula retail signs only come if formula retail come. i am supportive of the
2:52pm
legislation and of the question of architecturely significant signs and would encourage the supervisors office to figure something out. commissioner moore? >> just hearing commissioner wu speak i would like to you think about the sign in chinatown which could be down very quickly without additional approval. i would like to you think about a change in sign. >> this is a subject for another day and it goes beyond signs not to make things more complicated but there are many cities throughout our nation that have architectural review and they kind of make the building that are built there conformity architecturely to the areas they are in even some gas stations. we usually have
2:53pm
buildings that have been something else in the past that are being changed so this is a little bit more difficult. you see these more in places where these are built new but it helps to make it more acceptable to the eye that they don't stand out as being the golden arches where you may see. they are a little bit different but that might be something we think about when we look at the sign approval process to see how appropriate the sign is in the context of the neighborhood obviously grandfathering existing signs are fine especially if they are historic in nature and we are only changing the name there where that's appropriate. but signs that are a little garish is something i hope we have the ability to look at that. is this an item for we do not
2:54pm
have a motion. >> i move with staff recommendations including i think we already have some recommendations as to historic aspect if i'm not mistaken? we do not. >> we can add that. >> i would add, we are talking about historic buildings on historic structures where we are just changing the signs, but not the font of the sign, just replacing with the same. >> could the city attorney perhaps help phrase this. this is not about historic building but architecturely significant buildings. there is a subtlety in language here and unless somebody makes this motion there is a proper verbiage to
2:55pm
what is on this discussion. >> i think i'm a little unclear as to what amendment you are seek ing to make. right now as it's drafted the changes do not apply to article 11. for example girardily, if they wanted to use this revision they would not be able to do so because it is a landmark building. >> but the same adipose goes through with brannan. as an example, if it was, you couldn't change the copy of that sign even though the copy has been changed over the years. >> for the 888 brannan that is not subject to article 1011. >> let's say it was? >> if it was this legislation
2:56pm
would not apply and they would not be able to change the copy. the point of us putting in the change that doesn't apply to article 10 or 11, those signs may not be code complying, cannot be replaced. >> i think that's the problem we are in with 888 brannan. if we add language in where the sign is architecturely significant and/or the copy. >> this is something that should be done in separate legislation and it hasn't been considered as part of this process. i know mr. vettel submitted a letter. there are other remedies to this as well. now that zoning has changed it has a lower sign height limit and that maybe we can now allow a sign that is taller at that
2:57pm
location. i'm not sure of a procedure where we can allow brannan to replace the sign. >> one other thing that vettel had mentioned that there is no sign. we need to seek proof that you have a sign permit. to address that concern you can say buildings that have been determined historic resources and prior to the sign ordinance, they can liftoff the top of his head, the date thachltd as that hand, happened, that would solve the problem. >> okay. keep that thought. >> commissioner moore. >> while we were encourageing the legislation i was expecting there would be more work done
2:58pm
between the supervisors office sog some of the things we are trying to formulate and some of the comments made by san francisco beautiful and some of them might cause away because it never could or will but there is some language missing to protect us and get us on the slippery slope. >> commissioner? >> yeah. i definitely support that. if we can incorporate language around to the effect that you just mentioned for older buildings who have signs that may not be able to produce proof of their legitimacy of their permit process we didn't firm things into place until
2:59pm
the 60s. i understand it's from the early 1900s. in terms of these other recommendations, i think we make a recommendation that supervisors continue to work with interest party related to its conditional use but we wouldn't put that in the language of our specific recommendation but as a secondary we continue to look for supervisors to work with the issue. >> i think the commissioner would try to make the motion that would include an item where a building had a sign that predates any kind of sign ordinance and is being replaced merely for identification purposes but probably not be articles